Galston: Onward!
Bill Galston, as best I can tell, always thinks bold progressive action is a bad idea. He always thought taking up health reform was a bad idea. But even he understands that having come so far, it’s doubly suicidal to back out and not pass anything.
To try to put something I’ve said before in another way, folks working on the Hill need to try to step for a moment outside their little circle of Hilliness. Those of us who follow this stuff professional are aware that there is not and has never been a bill called “the Obama health care plan” nor is there any such thing as “Obamacare.” There are, rather, separate pieces of legislation. A House bill, a Senate bill, a Senate Finance Committee draft. And to professionals, there are important differences between these bills. House members voted for the House bill, but the Senate bill is something else entirely. Senate members voted for the Senate bill, but some amendments to make the tax provisions less-unfavorable to union members would be a whole separate bill. I understand all that. I write blog posts about it all the time.
But no normal people care about that even a little. The public has views on the “Obama health care plan.” And 59 out of 59 Democratic incumbent Senators voted for the Obama health care plan. And 218 Democratic House incumbents voted for the Obama health care plan. This plan does not poll well today. And if the narrative about the plan in the media becomes a narrative of failure, all about why Obamacare went down, it will poll even worse. And this plan has unpopular elements, and it has elements that can—and will—be portrayed in a misleadingly negative light. And all this is already baked into the cake. The votes cannot be untaken. But it is still possible to (a) accomplish something for the American people, (b) at least have a chance at turning the narrative around, and (c) avoid demoralizing those people who do like the health care plan.
67 Responses to “Galston: Onward!”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Of the subject…
Uh oh, Barney just bailed on Freddie and Fannie. I guess MY and Think Progress need another pow wow on how to go after Barney, or absolve themselves of all of the posts forgiving them.
Peanut gallery? Any thoughts? Are they still not part of the problem? 1 trillion dollars and counting…
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:06 pm
BTW, no one cares about your crazy health care ideas. It’s dead.
You guys need to think through something that actually can pass and won’t result in you losing another blue senate seat.
Realism MY…You’ve got it when it comes to FP, use it on the domestic scene as well.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Here’s some realism, Ed buddy: The GOP has no clue what to do. They, as MY has pointed out, have one credo: stand with folded arms and let America burn down.
And it is going to burn down, a) because we have a catastrophic institutional failure–our machinery of government is incapable of addressing existential threats to the health of the repubilc for which we stand, and b) because while the GOP is a parliamentary-style party, the Democratic party isn’t even a party, it’s just a drop-in volunteer co-op where no one wants to clean the toilets, mop the floor, or close the tills and reconcile the cash and receipts. It’s over, folks. Turn on, tune in, drop out.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Hey guys, check out the major network front pages. The health care debacle is way, way, off the front pages. I suspect (in my generally paranoid state post election) that the corps are trying to shove this thing down the memory hole.
And yeah, I think alot of these guys, congresscritters, newscritters, masters of the universcritters all, think that they can just put a shit eating grin in place and just move forward and make people NOT notice the huge dungpile in the Forum.
Not.Gonna.Happen.
Obama has no choice but to resurrect this zombie and use a bunch of makeup just to lose. He’s fucking finished otherwise. Not really because he’s bad, but because the government has lost much of the credibility to operate.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “Those of us who follow this stuff professional are aware ”
You mean you get PAID to write like that?
Imagine that.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Democrats will fare even worse in November if they don’t pass the Senate bill, for it would confirm in the public’s mind that it was a bad bill all along. If passed, Democrats will have ten months to counter the propaganda from the opponents; indeed, polling has consistently shown public support for the central elements of the bill, and that what the public opposes is a bill depicted in the propaganda that does not in any way resemble the actual bill. Don’t succumb to the purveyors of propaganda, the same folks who spent eight years trying to bankrupt the country. Pass the bill.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
You seem to be assuming that the Dems want to win.
Why?
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
elle loco,
You obviously haven’t read my posts before…not here to defend the hapless and nutty GOP. My presence here is merely to be the “call it as I see it guy.’ If you haven’t noticed based on the results of the Mass election, you guys have a bit of an echo chamber going on here that routinely devolves into groupthink. That’s why you’ve been upset as of late…because you’ve constantly been wrong.
I agree with you, the GOP is a bunch of talking points and really doen’t have a clue as to what to do next (besides crow about a victory that had nothing whatsoever to do with subscribing to Republican principles). That being said, I don’t think I’d be so sure about the Dems either. Unemployment keeps rising despite all of the things that you guys said would stop it. The health care bill has been rejected by the American people based on the polls, and the Presidents poll numbers are in the tank, not the least of which is because the economy still sucks a year after that moron W. departing.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Shorter Yglesias:
A guy who “always thinks bold progressive action is a bad idea” supports my position, thus proving that progressives ought to support it too.
That is some interesting…logic? Seems to me that ought to give you pause.
Next up – political advice from Dick Cheney!
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Meanwhile the good folks at Firedoglake are doing everything they can to kill the bill entirely. Somehow they actually believe stopping the bill will be a victory for liberals and will strengthen their hand in future negotiations. No, it just means no one will ever try to reform health care ever again.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
What exactly is the logic of voting for a bill once, a vote that repiglicans will try to pillory you for, and not having anything to show for the vote? Isn’t that just validating all of the repiglican commentary on how bad the bill is?
I can’t see a win for dems not getting HCR done in some form and RIGHT NOW the senate bill is the best (not perfect) vehicle to get that done.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Memory hole? There’s a health care story on page 1 of the NYT (dead tree edition). It’s not very big, but that’s because the SC campaign-finance discussion is a much bigger story today. There’s more inside, including two op-ed columns , a business article, and a piece about California health-care legislation.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Guys, HELLO!! You don’t have the votes!
Moreover, you don’t have public support for your current efforts!
Good Lord, this reminds me of my NY days listening to Met fans on the FAN talking about trading a broken down MIke Piazza for a Roid fueled Barry Bonds.
This is the most unrealistic line of ideas I’ve ever seen. Do yourselves a favor, stick your fingers out and pop the bubble…”Oh look at that, we just lost Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts, and the independents hate our health bill!”
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:30 pm
It’s an interesting thing – all of the people who won’t actually lose their jobs due to HCR, like Matthew and Galston and Paul Krugman, seem to be in favor of the House passing it. And all of the people who will actually lose their jobs due to HCR, like blue dogs, seem to be against the House passing it. Go figure.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:31 pm
If HCR passes the Republicans will run on how the Democrats expanded government and raised taxes. If HCR doesn’t pass, the Republicans will run on how the Democrats almost expanded government and raised taxes, and how the Republicans were barely able to stop them, which is why there should be more Republicans.
Seriously, I really want some of the drugs they’re taking if they’re able to believe that killing the bill now will remove it as an election topic.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I’ll add that, like McArdle, I think all of the bloggers and pundits who are so intent on the House voting on HCR ought to offer to quit their jobs (and not work in blogging or punditry for 2 years) if the House votes on it. That will make the issue a bit more equitable.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I came here to agree with everything that Matt said with two exceptions:
1) the typos, but no biggy and
2) there are not “59 Incumbent Democrats”; there are 57, plus Bernie Sanders and that guy from the Lieberman party.
On the other hand, for people who think this should be decided by opinion polls, I recommend highly that you read this analysis from Nate Silver, who knows a thing or two about opinion polls:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/in-health-care-reform-new-iraq-war.html
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:35 pm
93-87
CHECK MY $TATS!
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Matt, I have been hounding you about Citizens United vs the FEC since July. You ignored all my warnings. Well the ruling is here, Matt. It’s done. Our Democracy is in its death throes. What does it take, man?
FORGET FUCKING HEALTHCARE! This isn’t some petulant child’s game, where we have to beat the Republicans, even if it kills us, over a worthless piece of legislation. This goes way beyond your petty wants.
All activity, ALL ACTIVITY, must swing behind the work being done by Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
If Pelosi can’t get the votes to pass the Senate Bill out of 249, the Senate Bill is a BAD BILL. Not an imperfect bill, or an okay bill, or a reasonable bill, but a BAD BILL.
The problem is with all the jerks making deals in the Senate for a year that ended with a bill only Lieberman and Nelson could love, and the rest of that pit of a body holding their noses and voting for. If one, just ONE, progessive Senator had held out and been given the support of so-called liberals, which is all Hamsher and Bowers were trying to do, and resisted Obama we might have a bill the House could pass.
Or the Senate might have been forced to go nuclear.
But the centrists, moderates, and pragmatists have to get honest and take responsibility for letting this horrible hunk of garbage out of the Senate. It is Obama, Ezra’s, MY’s, Josh’s and the Senate’s fault, and not at all the fault of the House.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:43 pm
JimNotGene,
I think Nate Silver’s analysis is always quite good, but there’s a lot of factors that he’s smudging. Not the least of which was the last minute deal that you guys made with the unions. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but for the 95% of the population that’s not in a union…that really pissed people off.
The fact is that deals like that demonstrate to people that this bill had little to do with making health care better in this country, and more to do with pushing an ideological view. The fact that the bill was hidden from the public in reconciliation was another sign to average Americans that there was probably more in the legislation that they wouldn’t like at the end of the day.
So, by all means, go against the polls…No one says that you shouldn’t buck the American people…but just don’t bitch about the consequences…a la Mass.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Everything just changed!
CALIFORNIA IS TRYING TO GET SINGLE-PAYER. The California Senate Appropriations Committee just approved Thursday (yesterday) a proposal to set-up a single payer system in California. It goes to the full California Senate next week.
Google “California single-payer plan advances”
This immediately changes everything in the healthcare debate! Think!! California is the seventh biggest economy in the world and single-payer will cut into private insurers’ profits in a very big way. Private health insurers are going to have to change tactics in Washington immediately, to prevent this from happening. They are going to have to go back and try to get a deal from the U.S. House.
This changes what progressives should do next. First, support the California bill.
Next, hold it up as a states’ rights model and don’t let the U.S. Congress pass any provision that would prevent a single payer in California or any other state.
This could not only get us all to a single-payer, and sooner rather than later. And it not only puts the corporate moderate Dems on notice.
It is also going to drive a wedge between the teapartiers and the corporate moderates in the Republican Party. What is Scott Brown going to say — that he supported Massachusetts’ healthcare reform but is against what California is doing because it goes further than the U.S. Congress’ bill?!
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:45 pm
I’ll add that, like McArdle, I think . . .
OK, that’s where you went wrong.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Is Al taking crazy pills? Pundits shouldn’t voice their opinions because congressmen lose elections?
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Funniest post ever. Citing Beltway DLC Insider Bill Galston for “outside the Beltway” thinking.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“Bill Galston, as best I can tell, always thinks bold progressive action is a bad idea.”
This from the guy who dumped buckets of smelly horseshit all over Raul Grijalva.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
CALIFORNIA IS TRYING TO GET SINGLE-PAYER.
Dude, that’s not gonna happen. Schwarzenegger has already said he’ll veto it. Worse, there’s this from the Chronicle article:
So, they’re going to get Congress to pass a special law letting California spend federal money on its own single payer system? Not to mention that California requires a two-thirds majority to raise taxes, so good luck getting republican legislators to approve a 16% payroll tax.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm
“This plan does not poll well today. … And this plan has unpopular elements…”
So in order not to make voters angry, legislators ought to… vote for it again?
I understand your argument that “this is already baked into the cake.” And it will be used against people in November. But one way to lessen the impact is to make sure people don’t have to actually LIVE with health care reform they don’t wan’t.
Sure, I would be mad at my local baker for baking a cake I didn’t like. But I would be even madder at him if, after I told him I didn’t want to eat it, he crammed it down my throat.
You are right when you say people don’t pay attention. No actual people remember the details of the Clinton health care proposals or who voted for/against them. If you let this die, people move on. You start over. And the next time you have a 60 vote juggernaut, you try to pass something.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
22:That is how Canada got it’s healthcare system. Saskatchewan went first, then other provinces, then nationally.
If we had some decent principled liberals around Washington, instead of idiots like Obama and Ezra and Matt who get a hardon for making corrupt deals with Joe Lieberman (now there is the height of ego:deal with Joe and get great healthcare), we might be closer to saving lives and families instead of bashing the very nest among us in the House.
Single-payer. Demand it, accept nothing less, and don’t stop until we get it.
I don’t make deals when thousands of lives are at stake.
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Oh man, single payer in California!? Just how are they going to pay for that one.
Oh right, you guys don’t concern yourselves with level of care…I forgot. Given that California doesn’t have any money, that means you’ll get no care at all (maybe the docs will accept IOUs like State workers). But at least you’ll have the second most incompetent State Government in total control of health care!
Honestly folks, pinch yourselves…It’s time to wake up.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Bob,
The reason why you don’t have principled liberals in Washington is because they don’t win elections. And the reason why they don’t win elections is because whatever they promise people never comes to pass…or ends up fucking up things more.
You should be thanking your lucky stars that Pelosi seems to have the sense to bring this disaster to a halt for the time-being. Had she not done so, you might have lost the house, senate and eventually the Presidency. Politicians are certainly not the smartest people on the planet, but they are survivors…and the reason why they survive is because they know that people like yourself are the outliers…the ones that don’t get them elected (or thrown out). That’s why they’re not listening to you guys…because they want to keep their jobs.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
“The next time you have a 60 vote juggernaut, you try to pass something.”
Great fucking advice. We’ve all got 20 or 30 years just lying around, no need to rush this thing.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Matt W.,
20 or 30 years…I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. Given the current Republican leadership, all it’s going to take is another war to hand you guys back the keys to the castle. Of course, the country will either be worse off, or potentially destroyed at that point (depending upon whether its Iran, North Korea, or Russia) that we start a war with.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:21 pm
You’re looking at the world through Republican colored glasses.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Max424:
Matt, I have been hounding you about Citizens United vs the FEC since July. You ignored all my warnings. Well the ruling is here, Matt. It’s done. Our Democracy is in its death throes. What does it take, man?
Doesn’t this just take us back more or less to the days before the post-Watergate reforms?
Admittedly I’m something of a first amendment absolutist — so I acknowledge my thinking on this is outside the progressive mainstream — but I just don’t see this as a disaster. There are plenty of ultra rich people who are liberals, too, you know. And also, I suspect diminishing returns will set in pretty quickly in political campaigns. Anyone who lives in Massachusetts can see that (also, I read some media analyst saying that, because there’s only so much broadcast prime time inventory out there, the effect of a largish increase in political expenditures will mainly be to increase prices). Moreover, because of disclosure laws — which remain in place — I suspect many a corporation will have trouble (with customers, stockholders, etc) engaging in explicitly partisan, muscular electioneering.
Finally, 527s and the like already exist, and spend huge dollars on politics. Does anybody know if corporations can donate to such organizations under current law without limits? I believe this is the case, though I can’t seem to verify. If it is the case, then this latest ruling means pretty much nothing, and liberals should chill the fuck out and concentrate on passing healthcare.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Bob McManus:
I don’t make deals when thousands of lives are at stake.
Stupidest comment ever. You do realize, oh noble Bob McManus, that not doing a deal with the likes of dirty Joe Lieberman and scary Ben Nelson will result in tens of thousands of premature deaths yearly, don’t you?
If we had some decent principled liberals around Washington, instead of idiots like Obama and Ezra and Matt who get a hardon for making corrupt deals with Joe Lieberman…
Right. Liberals are getting sexually aroused at the prospect of letting Joe Liberman write the health care bill. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the out of control filibuster, is that correct?
You really need to shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself any more.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Ed: “You guys”? WTF? Who “you”? To cop a line from Ray-Ray, You don’t know me. So don’t preen around as if you do.
And I got news for you: Everybody hates Mickey Kaus; everybody hates the “call them as I see them from the Olympian cynicism and disdain of my superior panoptic view of dialectical reality” thing. And so–trust me–everybody hates you.
January 22nd, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Admittedly I’m something of a first amendment absolutist — so I acknowledge my thinking on this is outside the progressive mainstream — but I just don’t see this as a disaster
SSSSSShhhhhhhhhhh! You’re not supposed to say that.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Oh, if only there were a president who could act as a leader, issue a few dope slaps, and get the party to pull together.
I guess we’ll never know what might have been.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm
36:Nuclear option, bitch.
You can tell me it’s impossible, but don’t try to tell I have to eat what comes without it, or that shit is cavier.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Ed Smithe responding to me:
[my emphasis]
Hmmm, who are you talking about? You guys?
First of all, I am not, nor have ever been in a union. But I am not personally pissed off, but I will be if some advance towards civilized health care is not made in this country.
Yes, this legislation is not perfect, but I don’t know that you are just “call[ing] it as I see it” but rather you are parotting some of the lies (did you really read Nate’s piece?) that one can learn from the squawk box.
In any case, your ad hominem argument missed its mark in my case, and is unconvincing in any case.
In my humble opinion, even the Senate bill would save lives and reduce the budget deficit. The perfect being the enemy of the good, it should be passed.
Any honest argument given (on the right or the left) should address that.
The big question is how to convince the House of that. Clearly the votes are not there right now, so someone, somewhere must be searching for Plan C.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
You can tell me it’s impossible, but don’t try to tell I have to eat what comes without it, or that shit is cavier.
Exactly who is saying it’s a perfect bill, if that’s what you mean by “caviar?” The people you parody — Yglesias, at least, comes to mind — have been utterly clear about their preference for a single payer system. But don’t try and tell anybody that uninsured people won’t continue to die in huge numbers because people like you would rather wait until 2025 to pass Medicare for All, instead of enacting the largest expansion of social insurance in forty years and then improving it with time, and additional legislation, as has always been the case in the US.
We’re still waiting for the “Single Payer Health Insurance for America Act” of 1996…
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Bob mcmanus :
Explain why passing the Senate bill by the house, then using reconciliation to fix things with House and Senate majorities ain’t the right way again?
I’m missing something.
Isn’t a bird in the hand (Senate Bill > existing system) not worth two in the bush (Liberal wet dream > Senate Bill)?
Full disclosure, I believe (per Paul Krugman and candidate Obama, read Ch. 11 of Conscience of a Liberal and The Audacity of Hope) that Single Payer would be preferable if we were not under the political constraints of US Constitution and Senate rules, but that given those constraints we must instead have:
1) Community Rating (no pre-existing conditions, etc.)
2) Mandated coverage (or the system is unsustainable)
3) Subsidies for low-income households (or you are punishing the poor with #2
Ideally, we should also have public-private competition.
1, 2, and 3 are in the Senate bill. What’s your problem with that again?
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
43:Explain why passing the Senate bill by the house, then using reconciliation to fix things with House and Senate majorities ain’t the right way again?
Reconciliation first, then the Senate Bill. Reconciliation is very hard.
Otherwise Obama and the Senate will just laugh at the House.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution.
(Senate Bill < existing system…why is everyone assuming the House is full of monsters, rather than that the Senate passed a BAD BILL)
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“Great fucking advice. We’ve all got 20 or 30 years just lying around, no need to rush this thing.”
OK. Next time you have 60 votes, don’t pass something. Although I don’t think it worked so well this time.
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Bob mcmanus said (44):
I did not say that the filibuster is in the Constitution. I said that it was, along with the Constitution (and thus the unrepresentative Senate), was part of the constraints.
You want to do Reconciliation first, because it is hard? I don’t understand. It only requires 51 votes, so in that sense it is much easier. But it probably can not do things like Community Rating, etc.
So it should be used to fix the Senate bill. Can that be done before the House passes it? I’m not sure you can amend through reconciliation a bill that has not yet become law.
Anybody out there really know? If so, yeah, I’d say do it first, but I doubt that’s possible.
—
While I’m here, Sam M: learn how to read.
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
answering my own question above (or relying on E.J. Dionne: does he really know?)
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/01/how_the_democrats_may_solve_th.html
Seems like reconciliation may be doable in parallel, but there is no slam dunk here.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
46:Anybody out there really know?
I know. Yes you can do reconciliation before the primary. But the President has to sign the primary before he signs reconciliation.
It only requires 51 votes, so in that sense it is much easier.
It is a procedural nightmare, especially in the Senate. I don’t have a link handy, but there are many around (check DKos) and more every day.
It will also be a political nightmare. The Blue Dogs will be all over TV bitching about being shut out.
I want to do reconciliation first, or rather many Representatives want to do reconciliation first, nor because it is hard, but because we don’t trust the Senate.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
So, a bunch of people who already have decent healthcare decided to vote against using more of their tax dollars to help other people have decent healthcare.
(Or not. Maybe they just voted “we don’t think Coakley is the same stature as Ted Kennedy.”)
So another bunch of people who already have decent healthcare take that as an unimpeachable sign that people who don’t already have decent healthcare don’t want decent healthcare, and…WHAAAA?
I can’t tell you how angry I am at the government right now. I have never been so angry at the government in my life. Not even when I marched in the streets in March 2003 yelling my lungs out at Bush. Who are these people, and why do we tolerate any of them?
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I agree we need to pass the HCR Senate Bill — imperfect as it is. There are lots of positive bullet points available to show the value of the package to the country. JimNotGene makes a good start with:
Other blogers have equally positive lists longer than this.
The real issue is whether the Dems are ready to act like they won the Presidential and Congressional elections in 2008. The Reps were able to accomplish a lot with smaller majorities by exercising party discipline and using a scortched earth approach.
Key here is to pull the Dem interest groups together and make them understand that their infighting is unproductive and loosing the majorities will have more negative consequences! Then we need to make our Congressional caucuses understand how their public infighting and pathetic message discipline are killing the victory!
We won, its time to act like it and go on the offensive.
January 22nd, 2010 at 6:50 pm
It all comes down to the same old political choice.
EVIL or STUPID. (i.e. GOP or Dems) For the Dems it is the same old quote from the 1930s, I do not belong to a political party, I am a Democrat.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
[...] 22, 2010 · 0 comments In this post, Matt Yglesias gets at what’s so wrong about pulling the plug now on reform and why a lot of people on the Hill aren’t able to quite [...]
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:10 pm
Problem is, the bill sucks. It has two operating principles:
- Everyone MUST be a customer of Aetna
- Aetna’s bottom line MUST be preserved at all costs, including taxation of current health plans.
Progressives can’t get behind it or clap louder (see “taxes current plans” above). Most other voters believe the GOP-teabagger lies. Thus, Obama’s buzz saw.
You can hear insurance advocates boo-hooing what might’ve been in the latest NYT. Trifle late, fellas.
As employer based coverage disappears, full catastrophe looms. I’m sure this is excellent news for Republicans.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Sam M:
Sure, I would be mad at my local baker for baking a cake I didn’t like. But I would be even madder at him if, after I told him I didn’t want to eat it, he crammed it down my throat.
I think the more applicable analogy is: If my local baker baked me a cake, and when it was done I looked at it and said, “I don’t think I want to try that cake,” I would expect him to say “No, come on, it’s good, try it.”
If he said “Yeah, you’re right, it’s a lousy cake,” and took it away, I wouldn’t want to try his next cake either. In fact, I would look for another baker.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:28 pm
The dysfunction of our national politics just reveals itself in unexpected events. The House is upset with its options now to pass Healthcare reform. Okay, but will more fighting over Healhcare save the Democarts in 2012. It is clear the Obama has already pivoted to respond to the new threat. Hovering over healthcare will only play into the Republicans hands. 2011 must be focused on Jobs and the real Villians in this story, Wall Street and the Financial industry. I appeciate the concerns of house members but with all due respect, you can lose just a bad by fighting beyond the point where you efforts get you very little. Despite the good news, the Republicans were also caught off gaurd by events and they are moving quickly into a position to capitalize if the Dems can’t or won’t adjust. Either pass the Senate bill right away or decide to let it die. Each day in limbo hurts the dems.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I realize it’s about the only way anyone in Washington can frame this issue, but it’s getting a bit old listening to the media continue to make the argument that it’s “political suicide” if the Democrats don’t pass healthcare. Because the truth of the matter is, no one gives a rat’s ass whether it’s bad for some politician’s career to vote against this thing.
It’s time to stop whining about some Senator’s job prospects and start calling attention to the real reasons this bill has to be passed. Matt – you and Galston and everyone else imploring Congress to pass this thing to save their own asses is making our job selling this thing to regular people harder to do. It’s really just embarrassing.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Pass the bill, go for fixes.
Show them Democrats have guts. The Republicans are bullies because the public thrives on seeing someone get pasted.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Here’s some realism, Ed buddy: The GOP has no clue what to do. They, as MY has pointed out, have one credo: stand with folded arms and let America burn down.
That’s not an accident, that’s a Platform Plank for the GOP. They are the party of looters.
What do they care if 10, 20 or even 30% of Americans are unemployed? That just means Neil Bush and Rush Limbaugh won’t have to go overseas for underage hookers.
So the dollar goes down the toilet. They still have more than you do, and they can buy what little you have left so that on the next uptick, they’ll be even richer than ever.
This is what most Americans refuse to understand: A Great Recession is a great thing for the wealthiest 1% of our country, because of — not in spite of — what it does to everyone else.
People who support the GOP don’t know what makes an economy or a democracy work — the stupid ones think it’s a gift from God (GW Bush), and the venal ones don’t care. They only know the ways to chisel out a cut for themselves, and to hell with everyone else.
January 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 pm
It’s not about health insurance anymore. The whole imbroglio has become a symbolic issue in voters’ minds. If Congress proceeds (and Bam signs) that will be the final proof that Washington has stopped listening, and for that reason isn’t fit to govern. Bye bye!
If you want health care, pass financial system reforms and make the bill at least apparently responsive to people’s concerns. Chop off a few heads on the financial team, while you’re at it. Even though their replacements will arguably be less competent, that too isn’t the (political) point.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:53 am
Larry, I do not think most people are paying attention. I think most people think health care reform is coming, are wondering why it’s taking so long, and don’t know what just happened in Massachusetts. People who think this is the end of healthcare reform, symbolically or in reality, are people who know that the Democrats just lost the 60th senate seat. Maybe 10% of the voting population understands that and what it means.
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:43 am
If, as Matt says, “no normal people care about that” (meaning policy details), then why not just pass whatever the Republicans have in mind? You get it passed. You get bipartisan cred. It’s all good, right?
Who cares about details like the Senate bill’s excise tax?
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
This goes to the heart of President Obama’s failure of leadership. He really thought a hands-off approach to health care reform would insulate him from the inevitable corporate giveaways, and the appalling individual mandate. The Senate bill would force middle-class Americans to make huge financial sacrifices so that Big Insurance and Big Pharma don’t have to.
Whether it’s “Obamacare” or “Pelosicare,” it’s dead. Democrats created a situation where they can either pass a horrible bill that makes the health care crisis worse, or do nothing. Doing nothing will be seen as a failure, but not as big a failure as passing the Senate bill.
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
On and on this gut shot “health care” debacle staggers on ignoring reality.
After nearly 80 years of socialism, people are tapped out. Enough.
Decades of Americans expecting the government to tax other people for their benefit have finally broken the bank.
Decades of financing manufactured rights instead getting out of the way of people meeting their responsibilities has put us where we are. You cannot rob endlessly from one class to reward another and not expect repurcussions.
January 23rd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
rabbit,
I agree that most people aren’t up on the details (neither are most legislators) but that doesn’t mean that they’re asleep. Both Health care and Obama’s numbers are fading steadily, and Republican numbers are steadily rising – although the latter is a statement of protest rather than an endorsement.
rmwarnick,
Clinton tried ramming his approach down Congress’ throat – the ultimate in hands-on. Obama knew enough not to repeat that mistake. Both rounds featured a “backroom” approach, which destroyed what little trust people had in the process. Now we have new mistakes to avoid in the next round: don’t propose radical changes in bad times, unless those changes directly address the bad times, and don’t try to change the world with a single openly purchased vote and no support from the other party.
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:41 pm
We keep hearing that yes, most important elements of reform have been stripped from or are missing from the latest iterations of the bill(s), but there are a few good nuggets in there–so at least we should vote to get a foot in the doorway.
It’s more like having our own door smashed in on us and ransom demanded to protect against further demolition of our house.
January 24th, 2010 at 11:08 am
This is simple: if Democrats could just write good, clean legislation, they wouldn’t have a whole bunch of crap to be twisted and taken out of context.
Instead, they had all the ingredients for a delicious cake and they allowed every single personal interest to come add their own spice. It’s a crappy cake, no one should eat it, and no one should “just pass it and fix it later.” Because it won’t get fixed. To quote Ross Perot, “You know it, I know it, and the American people know it.”
It’s bad legislation. Say it. Say you can’t defend bad legislation. Say you can’t fix bad legislation. Say that weak leadership allowed this legislation to turn into the Hydra it has become. We did this to ourselves with the stimulus, and we’re doing it again with healthcare. You’re fighting the incompetent establishment here. Competence is, first and foremost, crafting defensible public policy and enacting clear, simple legislation.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Seems even Matt is in denial. It is as dead as Washington’s horse. There was a lesson from 1994 which the dems never learned – do it in 100 days or it will die. If you pass it when it is now so unpopular, including forcing everyone to buy crappy proivate insurance, the charge of ignoring the people’s will will resonate for years.
Break it into small chuinks and pass what you can ius the only possible way to get any of it. But don’t worry, the repubs will do nothing on the issue so in another generation or two Dems will be able to screw up HCR for millions of future uninsured Americans yet again.